Is Paul Ryan Standing on Unstable Ground?

I’ve written about the linkages drawn between lesbian and gay people as parents and lesbian and gay people having access to marriage a bunch of times here. For instance, in the trial court version of the marriage case now pending before the US Supreme Court, everyone agreed that marriage was good for children. From that premise, advocates for access to marriage argued that it was therefore only fair to the children of lesbians and gay men that their parents be allowed to marry. And the argument seemed to carry some weight, perhaps even with the critical swing voter, Justice Kennedy. By contrast, in France access to parentage for lesbians and gay men remains difficult and very controversial. And this has shaped the debate over marriage because some are concerned that if lesbians and gay couples can marry then they will be allowed to have children.

I’m reminded of this because Paul Ryan, lately the Republican candidate for vice-president, has decided he is okay with lesbian and gay couples become adoptive parents. At the same time, he maintains his opposition to access to marriage.

I have to wonder if he’s standing on solid ground.

Personally I am not persuaded that marriage is necessarily good for children. The studies that compare children of married and unmarried parents are often problematic, partly because unmarried parents come in so many varieties. The “unmarried” category includes teenage single mothers who never meant to be single mothers and women who have been abandoned by their husbands as well as some happily unmarried but stable couples–a disproportionate number of whom are same-sex couples. (That’s because the different sex couples who want to can and therefore presumably do get married–taking themselves out of the unmarried category.)

But the link between marriage and children–the idea that children should have married parents–is absolutely critical to conservative arguments in favor of keeping marriage exclusively heterosexual. Indeed, the idea that marriage is about children and it is the optimal setting for children is the pillar on which everything rests. I assume Ryan would agree with this. (After all, most people do. My skepticism is clearly a minority view.)

If Ryan is intent on preserving his generally conservative credentials, this means he’s now in a position where he is saying:

1. Lesbian and gay people should be allowed to adopt children but

2. We should deny those children the best possible families they can have by continuing to restrict access to marriage.

Is that really a tenable stance in the long term? I don’t think it is. The logical step from letting lesbians and gay men be parents AND thinking that it is best for children if their parents are married is to allow all parents–including lesbian and gay parents to marry.

I’ll be very interested in how well Ryan can maintain his footing here. Stay tuned.

3 responses to “Is Paul Ryan Standing on Unstable Ground?”

i think that its best,for children to be raised in one household than,in two but like you juliei don’t think the state issued marriage licence makea,or changes that. perhaps ryan is approachimg my idea, that marriage is fundamentally related to reproduction, but that adoption isn’t reproduction. bout time someone got that.

Maybe you’re right but I think the conservative position re: marriage is that it is about more than just reproduction. It is also about the optimal environment to raise kids. The argument is that it is best for children to be raised by their married genetic parents. But along the way you usually find the argument that it is better for parents to be married. Indeed, since the 1990s our government has spent a lot of money promoting marriage with the idea that this is good for children–more generally than just the genetic children.

Given the discriminatory nature of our laws, it is better for kids if their parents are married. When they’re not married, it’s easier to strip them from their parents. (Utah and unmarried men/fathers being an example and the cases in which one LGBT parent has attempted to shut out the other LGBT parent being another.)

Blog Stats

458,540 hits

About the Blog

Family law is shaped by and helps shape our worlds. It changes all the time, propelled by the diversity of our families and our experiences. It matters (and should matter) to many of us. Whether or not we think about the law, we are subject to it. That's why I started this blog.

Many topics in family law fascinate me. I hope to create a forum for intelligent and sustained discussion of some of the more compelling family law issues. I have started here with questions of parentage--who are the parents of a child. It's not as simple as it seems. But it is a terribly important one. By building slowly, case by case, story by story, I hope to slowly develop a rich and layered understanding of what it means to be a parent, one that perhaps, some day, the law can learn from.

My hope is that many of you will join me in the project and that the whole will be greater than the sum of the parts.